« "Not a Suicide Pact": Round One | Main | The Credible Executive »

September 22, 2006


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Frederick Hamilton

Methinks you are hell bent on trying to say we are not at war. War on poverty, war on drugs were rhetorical terms with no authorization by Congress to involve the military in a war.

Now you blindly walk right past in your post above what Congress says consitutes a war: ..."without a declaration of war or specific statutory authorization..." Eras you may not like to hear this but Congress gave the president specific statutory authorization. They voted for two wars. Two seperate statutory authorizations. The AUMF and the Iraq War votes. Is there something about that you can't understand?

Again, I appeal to a higher authority than Eras. Kimball, Curtis, et al. Is Eras right or wrong about the US being in a legally authorized war?

Frederick Hamilton

Go back and read the Hamdi decision where the Supreme Court acknowledged the AUMF as war and stated the president had the power to detain enemy combatants as incident to war. Would they have done that if they thought the war was Constitutionally illegal?


Mr. Hamilton, I believe we have reached that sad state where we are simply talking past each other. You continue to play fast and loose with the word "war". I have never once claimed that the use of military forces in Iraq and Afghanistan is illegal, yet you continue to falsely accuse me of such.

The issue I am arguing is that, according to the Constitution, we are not in a state of war. You have been arguing that the President enjoys enhanced powers because a state of war exists. This argument is founded on the presumption that a state of war exists. Since the presumption is false, the conclusion is false.

Inasmuch as you refuse to acknowledge this simple reasoning, I despair of any further productive discussion along this line.

Best wishes.

Frederick Hamilton

You are correct. Your position is we are not at war and the president does not have war powers.

I disagree and cited the War Powers Act you posted to prove my point. You still disagree. Agreed. We are at loggerheads. My only point to prove the war powers of the president is that the Supreme Court agreed he enjoyed war powers.

So be it.

It is semantic sophistry to argue that specific statutory authorization by Congress does not constitute being at war. The act that determines the war status is as I noted and then cited by you. The War Powers Act. Funny how Congress called "War Powers" isn't it. Maybe they should have called it per you, Use of Military Power act and left off the word War? Otherwise, your hair splitting Constitutionally has no difference as to the status of presidential powers as enumerated in the Constitution. You are saying the War Powers Act sets up different war powers than articulated in the Constitution. I disagree. Could you cite the part of the War Powers Act that provides the difference regarding the presidents war powers you say exists?


The comments to this entry are closed.